JAA: Requirements for ratings [Archive]

mortennb

6th Mar 2006, 19:11

In a word, no. There are no FAA type ratings for that size helicopter.

Individual CAAs have the right to reduce training below 5hrs + LST for initial Single Engine Turbine, but unless you have considerable experience they are unlikely to.

Helicopter Adventures, Florida do have a JAA TRTO I believe, however some time ago they quoted more per hour than it cost in the UK!

You are looking at around £450/hr + VAT in the UK

You can get it cheaper in Scandinavia and probably other European Countries

Hmm.. Thats to bad.. Because i could have bought myself some B206 time for 165 $/hour in the US. Because I need to get 6 hours for the type rating before I can take the JAA IR conversion in it. It costs me about 750 $/hour in Scandinavia.

mongoose237

6th Mar 2006, 19:14

Check your PMs

mongoose237

8th Mar 2006, 10:34

Yes you can get SE IR in the UK (Bristows, as you said) and also elsewhere in Europe - there is a longranger floating around Scandinavia in the same context.

206av8

8th Mar 2006, 13:57

What a joke JAR are. I guess while the industry puts up with these ridiculous, revenue raising requirements with regard to flight crew licencing then nothing will change. I suppose I should be thankful I am flying in Australia. It worries me though, because I have been trained over here I must be no where near as good a pilot as all the British or JAA pilots. Ha ha.

mongoose237

8th Mar 2006, 14:04

I believe 5 hours for initial issue, 3 hours for subsequent types is standard ICAO :confused:

I haven't read the CARs for several years, but would CASA issue a type rating to someone without a type rating but 10 hours B206 obtained through a strange loop in the FAA system that allows both instructor and student to log P1?

206av8

8th Mar 2006, 14:23

Sorry, i was not really referring to that particular requirement for a type rating but I am just generally annoyed with what I hear about experienced pilots trying to add ratings to an existing JAR licence or to convert to one or something similar. Where do they get off, the rest of the ICAO world seems to get by very well with less restrictive but more sensible requirements. What's the go? I guess I should have started a new thread about this. And I wasn't having a go at pilots with these licences, although it may have looked like that.

With regard to your question, if you could prove to CASA that you had flown 3 (or 5 if first turbine) hours with an appropriate person and covered the type rating syllabus then they may accept this. This may have changed.

B Sousa

8th Mar 2006, 14:38

strange loop in the FAA system that allows both instructor and student to log P1?]

As long as the student is at the controls in the proper seat, he can log PIC. Hes flying??
JAR sucks......bottom line

mongoose237

8th Mar 2006, 15:07

And I wasn't having a go at pilots with these licences, although it may have looked like that. Not at all, and no offence was taken. I have several ICAO licences so I guess I have the luxury of being able to stand back and look at the various systems' pros and cons.

What I can say is I think the JAA system is less than perfect, but it does get some unwarranted criticism.

For example, I don't think anyone would expect to convert their licence to another country's licence without a check ride. No JAA difference here.

Most people would expect their hours obtained abroad to be counted. No JAA difference here.

Slightly aside, I feel people often interpret "JAA" as synonymous with "British". JAA / EASA is the result of up to 40 autonomous countries collectively deciding what they feel best suits their needs. That is a far cry from Britain perceiving itself as a cut above the rest and imposing ridiculous rules to that effect.

New Zealand feels that its commercial pilots need external load training, because that suits their needs. Australia incorporates low flying training. "JAA" world feels that neither of these are necessary for their pilots, however it does feel that a broader understanding of theory, airspace and procedure is required. I guess that is as much their prerogative as it is any other country to impose additional requirements.

Should someone who has passed their commercial theory through 1 written exam after buying a book with all the questions and right answers in it be afforded an Australian CPL instead of having to undertake the CASA exams? Or a pilot with no low flying or external load training be granted an Australian or New Zealand licence? Should a PPL with a few hours night solo pre-licence issue be allowed to fly night VFR? The answers may be yes, or may be no. Everyone will have their own view.

Many will grumble at the JAA adminstrative fees, few however then grumble at their JAA salaries.

Not a rant; I have no axe to grind. Simply some observations and a little bit of food for thought.

206av8

8th Mar 2006, 15:26

That is an interesting take on JAR, and obviously from one who knows a bit about it with some valid points. If I can sum my thoughts up fairly quickly, I find it hard to see that if someone has gone to the effort of obtaining an Australian ATPL for example, which is no walk in the park, then they have to go through the whole process of passing numerous exams and also completing several flying hours probably in an IFR Twin just to be granted the priveledge of a JAA ATPL. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand this the case.
However, the majority of other ICAO countries accept valid overseas qualifications with usually just an Air Law exam pass required. What message does this send out to the rest of the International aviation fraternity?

mongoose237

8th Mar 2006, 16:08

I can understand people's frustrations about the theory, however it really is no different to other countries who also impose non ICAO requirements. The lure of European wages attract a lot of pilots (lets face it, its not the flying) so the JAA shortcoming are often lamented.

An FAA PPL includes night privileges. Are CASA going to issue a Night VFR endorsement on the basis of this? The FAA licence is ICAO, the pilot has worked hard on getting their PPL(H) ... I'm not trying to pick holes, I merely want to highlight that JAA is far from being the only authority to impose additional requirements.

A JAA ATPL will allow you to act as commander of a multi-crew helicopter. Therefore you are required to have multi-crew experience before you are given the licence permitting you to carry out such a role. I do not know of any genuine multi-crew helicopters that aren't operating IFR, so an IR is a requirement too.

If you have suitable experience, yes you will have to pay around AU$ 1,800 to take the JAA exams, and undertake a skills test. However you will then command a AU$ 70,000 - AU$ 190,000 salary in a job commensurate to your experience.

Although many overseas pilots feel that JAA requirements are belittling their achievements, the true must be felt by the JAA licence holders if other pilots who weren't subjected to the same onerous rules are given the same licence as themselves.

The JAA system may have its faults in excessive training minima, however it is merely asking all pilots who wish to exercise the privileges of a JAA licence to have done exactly the same amount of training. To exempt overseas pilots would be a slap in the face to JAA-trained pilots.

206av8

8th Mar 2006, 16:45

I can see how JAA licenced pilots may feel a bit ripped off if that were to happen but I don't agree with the way it is. I guess this could be argued for eternity but I still think that a person holding the relevant overseas licence and flight experience should only need to pass an air law exam and a flight test and instrument rating renewal if applicable.
It looks like the major difference between JAR and Australia for example is that in Australia most of the cost involved with becoming a M/E IFR Captain are taken up by the companies pilots work for. It is usually a natural progression from Co-pilot to Captain after appropriate experience has been gained and assuming you have the ability to progress. If a pilot has completed ATPL and IREX exams and gets a job as a Co-Pilot then he will usually not have to spend any more money on flying if he stays there for a while. This of course depends on the career path chosen after that.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents worth.

mongoose237

8th Mar 2006, 16:58

Yes, you are right it can be argued ad infinitum. I only argue for the consistency of licencing, not the standard.

The system is very similar in the UK:
You take the theory at ATPL level, that includes your instrument theory. These are valid for 3 years to get a CPL(H) and to get an IR(H). Then you have 7 years from your last IR expiry to get the minimum hours for ATPL.

When you have done your theory and passed your CPL(H) you may look to the offshore industry. Some are self sponsored, others get picked up and bonded for an IR. If you remain in the company, they will pick up the tab for the rest of your training and currency up to and including ATPL issue.

So we aren't that different after all :)

mortennb

8th Mar 2006, 21:50

Well, if it will become's like the rumors and statistics say. Europe and USA will have a lack of pilots within the next 5-10 years.

I picked the US way due to the experience you can get there on your visa. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know its not easy to get a job in Europe with 160 hours.
Today the US is hard on theyr working visa's, but If it becomes a lack of pilots it might be more easy to obtain one.

And what is than most suitable for a person who wants to become a pilot. Use lots of money to obtain a JAA CPL-H and lick asses to get either a ground crew job for 2-3 years or something else who will give you a ****ty job to get into the industry? Someone mentioned that the salary is much better in JAA countries... When..? Thats not the first 6-10 years.

You can get CPL, IR, CFI and CFII and GOOD chances of getting experience in the US for the same amount of money you use in Europe for the 160 hours and a CPL-H.
Its interesting to see how many people from Europe that take theyr pilot education in the US instead of back home. Most because its so hard to get into the industry. But only a few is realy interested in going back due to the system JAA has today.
I have two friends from Europe who are flying in the US. (greencard)
They both have been playing with the idea of going back. But they just skip it due to the conversion that are required to obtain those licenses.
It will be funny to see what the conversion will exsist of in 5 years if more people choose to stay outside Europe.

And some might say that they have a higher level of education in Europe. Well, thats funny. Its not long since the JAA was made. And I have spoken to alot of people who has converted who say FAA teaches you what you need to know, what you should now and where to look if you need to know more.
JAA is just that you have to know all before you are allowed to fly. And most people say they forget about 50% of what they learn in ATPL theory due to the fact that they never use it.
When you want to convert your ICAO license to JAA, and they give you ATPL-A theory for helicopters. It shows how stupid the whole system is.

:suspect:

mongoose237

8th Mar 2006, 22:13

Well, Mortennb, although that mythical 5-10 years never seems to arise and that I disagree with some of what you say, I hope you are right as it will make a lot of people happy. Good luck :ok:

mortennb

8th Mar 2006, 22:20

Well, Mortennb, although that mythical 5-10 years never seems to arise and that I disagree with some of what you say, I hope you are right as it will make a lot of people happy. Good luck :ok:

Its allowed to have hope and dreams....Even though I realy think it will never happend... :ok:

Heliport

11th Mar 2006, 17:26

mongoose237but 10 hours B206 obtained through a strange loop in the FAA system that allows both instructor and student to log P1
If the FAA doesn't have/require a type rating to fly a B206, surely a qualified pilot is entitled to log the time he's the handling pilot as P1?

mortennb
If you've got some money to spare, I'd say spend some of it on a few hours at $165.
Whether or not the hours count towards your type rating back home, you'll have the experience and the turbine time.
I've spoken to a few people who flew the traffic watch helicopters when hours building and they've all thought it was well worth every cent.

IMHO, the sooner ICAO licences/ratings are accepted by all ICAO countries provided a pilot passes the local air law exam, the better.
If countries wish to protect their employment position, they should do it by other means, not by using licensing requirements.

H.

SASless

11th Mar 2006, 18:03

Mongoose,

I hate to take issue with you however I feel a comment is necessary based upon your post earlier....that being:

Although many overseas pilots feel that JAA requirements are belittling their achievements, the true must be felt by the JAA licence holders if other pilots who weren't subjected to the same onerous rules are given the same licence as themselves.

The JAA system may have its faults in excessive training minima, however it is merely asking all pilots who wish to exercise the privileges of a JAA licence to have done exactly the same amount of training. To exempt overseas pilots would be a slap in the face to JAA-trained pilots.

You admit the JAA system is onerous and places an uneccessary burden on the pilot. Then you go on to accept such a propostion suggesting that it only fair then to force yet more folks to endure such expense and distress.

Which side of this situation are you on? Why can you and other JAA sufferers not stand up and start protesting such a system and effect positive and needed change?

Heliport states it very succinctly.....guarding one's turf at other's great harm and expense is wrong. What Heliport forgot is the wound is inflicted upon their very own constituents. No one but the bureaucrats benefit from the JAR's routine.

I just hope after the UK and Europe bin JARS and adopt EASA and everyone jumps through those hoops...the FAA and other Non-EASA nations assume a similar attitude and throws roadblocks of the same sort in front of anyone from an EASA bloc nation trying to get a Non-EASA license. I would love to hear the whining then!

mongoose237

11th Mar 2006, 18:59

SASless, perhaps I did not convey my points clearly - I make a distinction between
1. The licencing standards; and
2. Fair treatment of all pilots

If the JAA decide to change the rules, they apply to everyone. If the JAA decide to do nothing, they should still apply to everyone. Any disparate treatment would be manifestly unfair IMHO.

To answer your question, I guess that places me on the side of equity which overrides any belief that a licence issued in good faith abroad has unilateral applicability (perfectly valid belief, particularly in view of ICAO, but in this case overriden).

I do not have any evidence as to the motives for the JAA legislation, therefore I refrain from speculating on them.
To requote myself, I only argue for the consistency of licencing, not the standard.
However, from what little I have seen, EASA is no saviour.

Heliport
I never made any comment as to whether they were valid hours for your logbook. I asked if CASA would issue a type rating on the basis of them in the absence of any pre-existing type rating.

To answer your question, yes I believe you should be able to log hours in the manner prescribed by your licencing authority when flying in their airspace and in an aircraft of same registration.

Mortennb, if you're strapped for cash save it for your JAA conversion. It will be of more use to you than 10 hours in a B206 if you know you will be returning to Europe. If by the time you return to Europe there is mutual recognition, then put it towards an FI course or take a holiday to Van Nuys, Norfolk or Grand Rapids at that point.

Darren999

12th Mar 2006, 00:07

Heliport,

Fully agree with your ending statement above!! :ok: Good thread, and have seen both sides of the discussions. But I hope EASA does change this licencing situation, and soon. There are a shortage of pilots in the US, especially down in the Gulf. I have heard that certain companies are now thinking of helping with visa's due to the demand for pilots, which may help a few people get on...

Darren

mortennb

12th Mar 2006, 01:31

Mortennb, if you're strapped for cash save it for your JAA conversion. It will be of more use to you than 10 hours in a B206 if you know you will be returning to Europe. If by the time you return to Europe there is mutual recognition, then put it towards an FI course or take a holiday to Van Nuys, Norfolk or Grand Rapids at that point.

I have checked out the best way to do the conversion, so I know where I will do it if that happens. Have been talking to alot of other people that have the visa issue. And I might just do the same thing as them. Dont go home.
I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam.

As for the visa in the US. I have heard the same thing. But i dont think it will happend right away. But its allowed to hope. I will cross my fingers.:D

Oogle

12th Mar 2006, 08:35

Ahhhh.... the old JAA v's ICAO again.

Mortennb, forget the JAA system for a type rating. They will bleed you dry with over inflated requirements and your pockets will be left empty.

I am not familiar with the FAA system but another route may be to go to Aus, apply for a "Special licence" (very easy) and this allows you to receive training while in Australia. The Aus regs state for your first turbine endorsement (type rating) you must do 5 hours of DUAL instruction with an instructor or approved person. Any other turbine endorsement after that will only require 3 hours as long as the aircraft is below 2750kg. Let me state that these requirements are for singles. Multi engine machines are a little different.

For what its worth.....

mortennb

13th Mar 2006, 00:28

Oogle

13th Mar 2006, 06:28

Mortennb

This Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) link will give you all the info you require:

http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/overbr.htm

It also states the requirements to transfer overseas licences.

Good luck:ok:

mongoose237

13th Mar 2006, 08:46

Today is not a good day for me and getting confused, evidently...

CASA requires 5 dual hours for first turbine
JAA requires 5 dual hours for first turbine

CASA requires 3 hours dual for subsequent turbine
JAA requires 3 hours dual for subsequent turbine

CASA require ground training on type
JAA require ground training on type

However JAA does require a short handling test at the end of the 5 / 3 hours

Surely any difference is swallowed up in airfares.
Plus I have converted type ratings to JAA - the reduction was from 5 hours plus test, to 3 hours including test.

Unless you suggest working in Australia as an alternative to JAA in which case I've totally got the wrong end of the stick

:confused:

Oogle

13th Mar 2006, 09:01

Mongoose

The CASA information may be worth nothing but at least the hourly rate for a B206 in Aus would be alot less than in the UK.

As you mentioned, Australia does not need a "test" at the completion of the endorsement. What would you add as a test? 0.6 or 08 hours? It all adds up.

I suppose the big question is if the JAA recognise the type rating done elsewhere.

mongoose237

13th Mar 2006, 09:37

Yes, between 0.6 and 0.8 is reasonable for completion of the handling portion depending on the examiner. Slightly more if you want the commercial check out for the company too.

The best advertised (ie non discounted) dual rate I've seen in the UK is £460 (AU$ 1083)
Elsewhere in Europe I have seen it as low as AU$ 781
What are you looking at these days in Australia?

The UK CAA has its moments, sometimes it is reasonable, other times it is not:
When I was a relatively fresh CPL I had 5 hours dual on the R44 obtained under the FAA rules so no type rating. This was back when you needed 5 hours including test for all single engine type ratings. I got 2 hours knocked off, which I thought was reasonable.

The same discount was later afforded to me for converting an ICAO type rating.

However, I have seen some ridiculous stubborness on other matters.

What would CASA require to convert an ICAO type rating?

I am not necessarily pro-JAA or any other licencing authority, I am just trying to add a little balance in amongst the universal scaremongering of JAA

Oogle

13th Mar 2006, 09:54

Mongoose

All the overseas variance/acceptance information is in the link that I posted a couple of posts ago.

In Aus, there is a clearly defined difference between an endorsement and a rating. A rating requires a flight test at its completion (ie. instrument rating, instructor rating, night rating, etc). An endorsement does not. In Aus, CASA can do flight tests or an Authorised Testing Officer (ATO). ATO's have delegations to conduct certain types of flight tests. Eg. my ATO delegation only allows me to conduct instrument issues & renewals, night VFR tests and aircraft type endorsements. Other ATO's have the delgegation to conduct commercial flight tests, mustering endorsements, etc depending on what powers they have been given.

For the recognition of an overseas endorsement, CASA has to be satisfied that the aircraft type in question is already on the Australian register and that the applicant's level of training received overseas is equivalent to what CASA would require (ie. 5/3 hours dual instruction, etc).

Price of a B206??? I am not in Aus at present so I would be the last person to ask.

BigMike

13th Mar 2006, 14:33

"What would CASA require to convert an ICAO type rating?"

$130 Oz dollars.
Recently had a B427 endorsement from Czech put on my CASA licence. Some paperwork and forms, mainly a letter from the Czech CAA, and the cash of course...

Whirlygig

14th Mar 2006, 15:03

I'm pretty sure it's five hours plus exam; the same as if you didn't have a rating at all. I had a similar query with a South African Jet Ranger rating and was told by the CAA I would need something like 500 hours in that particular aircraft type to "convert" the licence.

However, I don't know anything about 15 hours for instruction - I would have thought if you have 20 hours already, you should be able to do the rating in minimum time and that if you had the rating, you could instruct in it - provided your instructor's rating is similarly valid.

Cheers

Whirls

mongoose237

14th Mar 2006, 15:22

Whirly is correct: if it is your first piston type rating it is 5 hours plus test, if you already have JAA piston type ratings it is 3 hours plus test.

The situation only changes when you have 500 hours on type, as Whirly correctly pointed out.

However, that is not to say the CAA won't consider a reduction in training on the recommendation of the Head of Training of the school that does your "conversion".

Some time ago there was a requirement of minimum hours on type to teach, but that is no longer the case.

Edit - Actually, you better check in JAR FCL2 that what I've said isn't because of a UK long-term exemption, in which case Holland may be different

Bravo73

14th Mar 2006, 18:33

Some time ago there was a requirement of minimum hours on type to teach, but that is no longer the case.

I'm afraid it is still the case, Mongoose. (Or at least my reading of LASORS implies that it is).

H1.7 FLIGHT AND THEORETICAL REQUIREMENTS TO EXTEND PRIVILEGES OR REMOVE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR RESTRICTIONS

Addition of other single pilot, single engine helicopter type to FI(H) providing that the FI(H) has completed not less than 15 flight hours on that specific type in the preceding 12 months.

Page H.6, LASORS 2006.

HTH,

B73

mrwellington

14th Mar 2006, 22:20

HillerBee

14th Mar 2006, 22:58

It definitely right you don't know much of the FAA system. The written exam is very easy for people who did study. There are a lot of people who still fail the first time.

The oral exam is very, very rigourous. This can take up to 4-5 hours (CPL and higher levels). If you don't have the required knowledge you will fail.

I come across JAA CPL's as well as FAA CPL's who make me wonder.

Personally I think the type-rating system is very good, at least you don't have people getting in different types without proper training. But then again in the USA you're not insurable if you haven't got 50 hours on type for most insurance companies. Let alone fly a turbine with less than 500 hours. So that part is just commercialy regulated.

mortennb

15th Mar 2006, 02:21

........isn't this all about shortcuts and personal economy? My basic view on the FAA system goes with this story : Drunk student brought a dice to roll when in doubt for the CPL computerbased exam(basically given up prior due to intoxication)........passed with 72 %. I'm not making this up :eek:

So mortennb, with remarks like "I think I will try to get a job outside JAA, where they acctually allow me to fly after 1 exam"...you should really ponder the question......would you like the mechanic, who just happened to do one (1) exam for his A & P from the Univerity of Laserprinter to fix the helicopter your flying ?

Ofcourse not, but I am not a mechanic either. Are you saying you are a better pilot if you take 14 exams instead of 5? I dont know all of the JAA exams, but I know 1 is about flight planning. Dont you have to plan a flight plan from Japan to the UK or something. At 60.000 feet? Well, I cant see how that makes you a better helicopter pilot. And the rest is for fixed wing except performance??

90% of new pilots in the US work as a CFI for 1 year getting theyr first 1000 hours. Gaining experience and getting a better understanding of the whole education. Do they do the same thing in JAA nations?
How long does the 14 exams make you a better pilot?

Also find the story you tell hard to beleive. First of all, where did he take he's exam? Who lets a drunk student into a testing center. Second, smart move by the student to show he's true side before he's even done with he's education.
And if its true, yes it might be right.. But you will also show the possible employer that your a slacker when you show your results. As well as the reputasion he already received after doing that stunt. And the FAA has a min of 70% to pass, while JAA has 75%. Cant see the big difference, since you can see the examples of JAA questions at JAA.nl. Almost the same.

Only difference is that the FAA gives you the test prep.
And also another thing, how many helicopters does the US have compared to ALL JAA countries.. And look at the accidents???:hmm: But I guess we are the bad mechanic, while your the pro with 14 exams....

mongoose237

15th Mar 2006, 10:49

Bravo 73 That is interesting, and I don't have an old copy of LASORS to check back with to see if the CAA has changed the wording. This (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=151107) is how I understood the situation, but the section you quote does raise a doubt or two (although to my mind it reads like an incomplete paragraph - perhaps an bad edit job?)

Mortennb
Are you saying you are a better pilot if you take 14 exams instead of 5? I dont know all of the JAA exams, but I know 1 is about flight planning. Dont you have to plan a flight plan from Japan to the UK or something. At 60.000 feet? Well, I cant see how that makes you a better helicopter pilot. And the rest is for fixed wing except performance?? Should the comparison not be 9 exams instead of 1 (CPL to CPL), or 14 exams instead of 2 (ATPL & IR to ATPL & IR)?
Many of the JAA exams have a heavy fixed-wing persuasion, however that does not mean the entire subject is of no relevance to helicopter pilots - that would be very narrow minded.
Meteorology, IFR Communications, VFR Communications, Flight Planning, General Navigation, Instrumentation, Radio Navigation, Air Law, Human Performance, Mass and Balance and Operational Procedures have universal elements in varying degrees.
Principles of Flight and Aircraft Systems are now rotary specific.
The system may well have changed, but helicopter pilots were exempt from the Performance paper altogether

And also another thing, how many helicopters does the US have compared to ALL JAA countries.. And look at the accidents??? But I guess we are the bad mechanic, while your the pro with 14 exams.... Now that is going to open a whole new argument!

In this industry there is forever this petty "my system is better than yours" going on between pilots from different licensing authorities and lets face it, none are perfect. The FAA written exam is far too little, the JAA exams are too much. The FAA oral exam is an excellent idea, the lack of one in the JAA system is sorely missed. You go to America you will have the chance to build hours quicker and cheaper than in Europe, however when you return to Europe you may well be at a disadvantage to those trained in Europe and you will have to pay for a conversion. Its all swings and roundabouts and most of these sorts of arguments are futile.

The reason I am posting this information is not to carry on an argument, it is because many potential pilots come on these forums to look for information. Yes, they come on here for opinion, but they also need to understand the facts behind the prejudices so they can make up there own minds.

I have spoken to so many people that were unaware of the whole story when they were sold on the idea of training abroad and now realise its going to cost a considerable amount of money to come home again and are very bitter towards the JAA system, whereas in actual fact nothing had changed whilst they were gone. It was simply the result of bad or incomplete information at the decision making stage. And similarly I have actively encouraged other students to go abroad when on discussion it suited their individual situation.

Bravo73

15th Mar 2006, 16:22

Bravo 73 That is interesting, and I don't have an old copy of LASORS to check back with to see if the CAA has changed the wording.
I've just checked my back issues of LASORS (2003 & 2004 editions - jeez, how sad am I?:uhoh:) and the wording is exactly the same. I can email the 2003 section to you if you want it!

This (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=151107) is how I understood the situation, but the section you quote does raise a doubt or two (although to my mind it reads like an incomplete paragraph - perhaps an bad edit job?)
I can only suggest that the CAA drone who gave that advice back in November 2004 got it wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!

mongoose237

15th Mar 2006, 16:37

Well it certainly has got around a lot since then, as a number of different people have their flight instructors working under that interpretation!

It does create an interesting situation, however remember LASORS is not law, and quoting from section A1:
Nothing in this publication is meant to conflict with aviation legislation. Where there is any doubt the legislation must be regarded as definitive.
And the appropriate section in JAR FCL2:
JAR–FCL 2.330 FI(H) – Privileges and requirements

[Provided that in the preceding 12 months FI(H) has completed not less than 15 hours of flight instruction (which may include skill testing/proficiency checking) on single-pilot helicopters, or passed, as a proficiency check, skill test set out in Appendices 1 & 2 to JAR-FCL 2.330 and 2.345,] the privileges of the holder FI(H) rating (for restrictions see JAR–FCL 2.325) conduct flight instruction for [the issue of]:
(emphasis added)

Note there is no reference to on type, and JAR FCL 2 take precedence over non-legal guidance material IMHO.

Maybe chalk it up as another LASORS inaccuracy?

paco

16th Mar 2006, 03:05

Interesting thread. I've not been through the US system, but I have been through the Canadian and JAA systems and feel I can make a few comments.

When I left the military, I heard all the usual stuff about how the British (now JAA) system was the best, etc.

The JAA philosophy is to ensure that you know as much as you can before you start, since they have no way of knowing where you are going to end up during your career. In Canada (and the US), they don't expect you to be an expert at that point, but appreciate that you will get the same knowledge through ground school and type ratings.

The Canadian written exams can be taken at any Transport Canada office at any time, and are more straightforward than the JAA exams, but they are not "easier". What critics seem to forget, or not know about their system, is that the flight test is the killer. Mine was almost a whole day in the company of an examiner, with 4 hours spent before the flight discussing maps, their equivalent of Pooley's, what you would do with drunk passengers, etc. As a previous poster said, you'd better know your stuff! Also, when I did my UK skills tests, if the examiner was checking cross-country, for example, and you did nothing completely stupid in other areas, that was all he was interested in. In Canada and the US, every aspect of your flying is checked. Considering that the Canadian syllabus is only 100 hours, which includes some slinging, they produce some very good pilots. (On the subject of examiners, I might add that I have always had a standard ride from Transport Canada inspectors - they have unfailingly been poilite and straight down the line, which is not always the case with JAA).

Back to the JAA exams. Yes, they are over the top in some areas - unless I was going to repair my own radio in the jungle, which I might have done 50 years ago, I fail to see why I need to know about AND gates or the inner workings of a CRT (although being a PC technician I happen to know that anyway). However, the majority of the Radio stuff is there because it is part of the amateur radio syllabus, which you need because you have a radio licence. Also, the Human Factors stuff is there as an ICAO requirement.

Believe it or not, I've even used a lot of the stuff in Nav gen, which most people promptly forget!

As for type ratings, the original subject of this thread, In Canada, any Canadian CPL with the same type rating can take you through whatever minimum hours you need before your skills test. If I'm not mistaken their signature will also qualify for that, but don't quote me (It was certainly the case for my last one). The other good thing they do is that the examiner's signature is good for thirty days until your new licence appears in the post so you can go to work straight away - no going all the way to Ottawa (Gatport Airwick) to get it done like you have to do in UK.

Please don't slag off systems if you don't know what you are talking about!

Phil